JustinRP37

So Network management practices can effectively manage and help the network stay decongested?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Network management can help, but they cannot throttle. Like the terms say, they can limit video to 1080P HD, music streams to 1.5Mbps, and gaming to 8Mbps. They cannot depriortize your data until you use 23GB of data in a month. Meaning if there are a lot of people in one are streaming video, the network will still become congested without enough spectrum.

That's very true. So if I'm correct but you can correct me if I'm wrong Speedtest can also congest Network

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

Definitely can. So can multiple people in a mall sitting down at a Starbucks watching a TV show, sharing large files, etc. The good thing about speed tests is they tend to be quick. Video streams are active for much more time.

does zero rating do any harm at all ?

 

Only harm it does is people constantly running speed tests, but then again the average user is probably not running speed tests constantly. Speeds tests tend to be used when a user thinks his/her connection is super slow as a diagnostic tool or when it is super fast for e-peen contests.

I find it very interesting that suddenly when the tenor of this thread and general sprint perception was going south fast, sprint seems to be righting the ship and releasing all these great news. Maybe the figure is not so grim for sprint after all.

 

I gotta say that while I had a great 3 1/2 years with sprint, T-Mobile just made us an offer too great not to take up - especially with hookup, kickbacks and a free line. That said, all our phones are now unlocked and we could always switch right back to sprint if they come up with better plans.

 

Or as they say, fear is a great motivator. The sentiments that were on display here and on the internet in general over the past few weeks since VZ made the announcement were heard in Overland Park. I'm sure much of the improvements have been in development for years, but I am fairly confident that all the press since the unlimited announcement has been a great motivator to get the news out there. Remember, I believe it was Marcelo that said there is a chart updated in the offices that shows the port in and port outs, and that they need to constantly be improving. I think there will be great moves for the consumer over the next year or so in the wireless world and that is a great thing. 

People still roam on V?? LOL  (I haven't roamed on V for about 2 years)

 

All joking aside, if by 2019 V roaming is still a thing, I think Sprint will have other issues to worry about.

 

This may still be an issue in 2 years if Sprint doesn't increase rural coverage. I have not roamed on V in years along any major highways or really any town with more the 10,000 people. But in rural areas, some ski areas, etc, I would roam on V quite a bit. In a way it always feels nice to get away from data connections sometimes and just enjoy life. 

iPhones have the same retail cost across carriers. Because of the additional components to support Band 30 on the AT&T specific version of the iPhone 6s, that version likely had a higher production cost. So, Apple's profit margin on that variant was likely lower.... and we all know how Apple loves its margins.... so Apple didn't want to have this increased cost when it wasn't necessary.

 

It must have done the math on the economics of producing a single iPhone 6s variant having Band 30 support vs having two variants. The numbers came out somehow.

You also have to acknowledge that Apple has been great with including as many bands as possible into each of their phone variants over the last few cycles. The "SIM" free option is typically one of the most open phones you can buy. Also HPUE, from what I have read, is being deployed in many Asian markets and Apple is really trying to gain traction in China. It took Apple awhile to add LTE to the iPhone, but IMO they have been doing an excellent job of making the phones as universal as possible (which also does cut down on manufacturing costs and component costs at scale).

I guess you didn't read the part of where not having enough spectrum will have a bad effect on the network slowing down with a sudden influx of users. Basically just like cable when everyone in the neighborhood fires up the computer and it slows to a crawl.

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

Verizon has plenty of users on old grandfathered unlimited plans with no deprioritization with many adding the new unlimited plan. Yet their average network speed as of March 3rd is 24 Mbps for download and 7.2 Mbps for upload. Compared with Sprint's average network speed of 14Mbps down and 3.6Mbps up. Despite all the spectrum claims Sprint is still the slowest while having the least amount of subscribers. Most markets are not suffering from spectrum crunch yet, and Verizon would not make this move if it would tarnish their brand image, just like Sprint would not be showing off HPUE on a global scale if the results were not fantastic. The speed averages really do mean something along with the LTE footprint. There is a tremendous difference in the LTE footprint among the carriers.

But they aren't handicapped by spectrum. Where Verizon and next T-Mobile are.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-06/verizon-s-reliable-reputation-on-the-line-in-coming-data-deluge

 

 

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

 

Spectrum really does not matter to the consumer, data speeds are what matter. Right now Verizon leads in speed, while T-Mobile is close. That may definitely change over time, but until then consumers will typically look at the RootScores. We also have to see how the auction turns out this spring. 

So what I see is, you guys want Sprint to lower it's rate plans while increasing money to network buildout, and you want it done by by summer no later. Oh and while they at it give away free things. Make you guys even more spoiled brat arm chair CEO's and when they haven't done what you guys want, find someone else that will? I guess most of the current generation of people are mostly give me what I want or else, I I'll complain, bad mouth, never feel satisfied, and try to preach orders to a company you don't even work for. It's just like the company I work for too.

 

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

 

Sprint has been mismanaged for years, but they have been well on their way to recovery until Verizon dropped a bombshell of unlimited for a decent price on a family plan. Sprint just managed to post its first annual profit in nearly a decade last yer (http://phandroid.com/2016/05/03/sprint-2015-financial-results/).

 

Report after report has shown that their network is dead last in data, and by quite a wide margin. There is no longer any reason why Sprint with B41 cannot win many more markets in data speed. Sprint realizes this and I think that is why we are now seeing explosive growth in the mini-cells and the very public announcement of HPUE. Yes Sprint is number 2 in phone call reliability, but the difference between the four carriers in that metric are not much different when compared to the difference in data. What you just described, the "give me what I want or else" is capitalism at its best! It is what forces competition and ends up helping the consumer out. I think you are just seeing people frustrated and personally attacking Sprint, which is uncalled for. However, loyal customers do feel left out of the new offers.

 

People will churn and people will join. That is what capitalism is all about. And for me with four lines of Sprint Framily on unlimited for $45 a month per line, why would I not join the number one network in America for the same price? Especially if Verizon is willing to give be an even bigger discount because I have FiOS. We are finally seeing competition in American wireless. This is a good thing. Unfortunately right now it is a bit rough for Sprint (this Verizon announcement was unexpected by all carriers), but I think they will rebound quite well once we see HPUE and network densification with the minicells. 

That said, I think that the engineering people can and should lay low talking about the spectrum haul until much more of it is paired with infrastructure capability. I certainly think that is a fair complaint. Likewise, complaining about spending on RadioShack/Tidal/Pokemon is also fair when that capital could have and should have went into network infrastructure. 

 

I hope Marcelo reverses course and pulls back on RadioShack. If the real estate is good for Sprint corporate locations, do that. If the real estate is not, let it be someone else's problem. 

 

This especially!!! It is frustrating to even hear about Tidal because there are many areas of the network where you cannot reliable stream Tidal lossless. And the Pokemon Go thing is just ridiculous. It cheapens the appearance of the store. If you are in business to provide telecommunications to consumers and businesses then there is no need for your store to be 'gym' for people to catch Pokemon. Also, the few remaining RadioShacks I have seen really look like a shack filled with crap. Appearances mean everything and right now if I were in charge of Sprint, the retail and web operations team would be given an overhaul. 

 

 

I'd like to see a wireless carrier market of two or three strong national wireless carriers (I'm fine with three if U.S.Cellular decides to sell, which I think they ought to sell to either Sprint or Verizon), having each of the national carriers with equally strong spectrum portfolios where consumers who chose a certain carrier, would not need to investigate how much spectrum a carrier has in each market they are in most, especially if they travel often to places where while their carrier in one area has plenty of spectrum, does not have much spectrum in another, which they notice has an impact on their service. That impact, in my view, has a lot to do with the government, as it does with the carrier, based on the auction system which is not part of typical business competition.

 

What is typical business competition is a carrier's choice of adequately supplying sites to their customers, what technology they use on those sites, how they maintain those sites beyond what deals they have with tower companies, how many/where they are located approximately to key target areas and other useful positioning of these sites. Competition also is in pricing. These are aspects which customers should choose the best carrier for them that would at least give them equal levels of service between markets, so long as the carrier does what it needs to do to stay competitive, which they themselves have control over, not influenced by the government.

 

Actually the auction system is part of typical business competition, it is just not usually run by the government. Companies are always participating in an "auction" of some type. It is usually called supply-chain management. Companies evaluate and bid against other competitors for access to supplies all the time. As for your view on spectrum being too high priced, 'spectrum' is what these companies are using to generate their revenue. Since the top three carriers have been making great profits (and some have been making great profits) that would tell the government that maybe the spectrum was undervalued. 

 

When you say you want the carriers to all be equal with regards to spectrum, that removes most forms of competition. One of the biggest expenses to the companies is the spectrum. Remove that and they can build the network and or just co-locate all sites with the existing competition. There would be a stagnation in innovation. As an example of this just look at the set-top box market for cable TV. I am sure 95% have those god awful Motorola silver boxes, yet all cable companies charge about the same price for them per month. Just what would be the point of picking company A over company B if they have the same spectrum, speeds, etc. What would come next, the government making sure each carrier had relatively equal customers to make sure that the spectrum per user remains equally divided?

 

Further, if you think the average consumer is looking at spectrum for their wireless provider, then you are giving them way too much credit. Here is how it works for most consumers: "Root Metrics shows this company is number one nationwide, I'll pick them." Or they say "wait, they are way over my budget, let me see oh this company offers unlimited at half the cost, I can afford that and coverage is okay for my needs".

SC and VA are NOT in the southeast. I livr in south Florida and have tsken road trips from fort Lauderdale to atlanta. I only lost LTE when I het close to I-10.

 

 

I have also been to Tampa and Florida. Speeds are more than usable. On LTE all the time. Granted i dont check my phone every minute of the day. But whebi do, i always have LTE and usable data.

 

On a side note...Japan Roaming is awesome.

 

 

Says who?  There is no universal definition of the regions of the US.  I consider Virginia to be part of the southeast, and definitely part of the South.  (I note that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who I would argue help to define the South, both were/are based in Virginia.)

 

- Trip

 

 

This is something I never could understand or agree with people saying those states as being in the "south", To me, Texas is in the south. Virginia and the Carolinas are mideast. 

One of the best things for wireless carriers, is to have an FCC that not only is merger-friendly,but also willing to offer a lot of spectrum at reasonable purchasing rates.

 

Except the second thing you mention (merger-friendly) is typically NOT consumer friendly. Just keep that in mind. However, I do think the market is speaking and it cannot fully support 4 national carriers. Almost a full decade of losses with just a few quarters of positive revenue for one of the companies.

Now hopefully Sprint will offer deals to existing customers for the newer HPUE devices...

 

They have to realize going to another carrier is a consideration not only for plan price but deals on phones, too.

 

I think the bigger issue here is that many people are really starting to slow down with upgrades. It was in the Wall Street Journal last year (https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-keep-their-cellphones-longer-1461007321) and I think the trend will continue. Besides the number of us "technophiles", people are beginning to keep their phones as long as it does what they need it to do. For the most part that is email, music, web browsing, streaming, and some light gaming. I firmly believe that if you can afford to own your device, you should definitely do so. It super easy now to "shop" around to get the best prices, coverage, etc. If you can hang onto a device for 3 years with great coverage, you are definitely saving money now when compared to the old contract based pricing. 

 

Unfortunately, a lot of people are not as literate with technology and end up being burned. I just read on Reddit about a guy who bought an iPhone 6s from Apple through their installment program and he was using it on Verizon. He switched to Sprint and claimed Sprint gave him a 'free' iPhone 7 when he cancelled Verizon (he has to turn in the old iPhone). Long story short, the phone was not from Verizon, but Apple, so it is ineligible for the refund. He simply should have just inserted the Sprint SIM into the unlocked iPhone 6s and boom Sprint service. This stuff bothers me because people blame the carriers, when in actuality it is their fault.

They have stated multiple times, very little to none, since you now have a stronger signal to B41, and will essentially require less time on LTE.

"Though HPUE requires more powerful amplifiers, Sprint claims that it should have minimal impact on battery life because mobile devices will not need to be switching LTE bands as often."

 

It sounds really cool and like it will work well in the areas with a good distribution of B41. 

Essentially HPUE is just an increase of 3 dBm transmit power allowed from the handset to the cell towers from 23 dBm to 26 dBm. The higher transmit power translates to the signal travelling further thus "increasing" coverage which is the pitch. It is also a power class change from class 3 to class 2.

 

The reason why they are allowed to do that is because the 2.5 spectrum has not been ever been used for 3G applications like CDMA, GSM, UTMS, iDEN. Therefore there is no interference with transmitting at a higher power that would conflict with 3G applications unlike other spectrum bands like PCS, ESMR, AWS, Cellular which has been used for 3G application and are limited to a max of 23 dBm transmit power.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

So I am wondering what effect this could have on battery life. 

I am not positive about 95%, but ----- last week, my wife was looking for bigger clothing for our growing great granddaughter. I took a little walk to the nearby Sprint store.   I had one rep tell me I should be buying phones with a bigger battery since it would give me longer range from the cell site.   The rep got distracted and another one thought it would be  a good idea to pick up the conversation. He tried to tell me that a Galaxy S-5 did not have LTE capability.   I am beginning to think that employees in Sprint stores have no clue either.  He then decided to argue with me about it.  What he failed to understand was that I owned TWO galaxy S-5's and now own TWO Galaxy S-7's.  I kinda think that I might know more than all the reps in the store. Very Very SAD.,

Funny because when I went into a Sprint store today in NY to pay off a lease the manager asked if I had issues with coverage in NY since my area code in CT. I told him where I had issues in the Bronx and he claimed that it was because my phone would be trying to connect to towers in Connecticut because of my area code. I was flabbergasted. But I am shocked with your bigger battery claim. Oh boy.

HPUE = High Power (HP) User Equipment (UE) 

 

I understand now all in the user end. So nothing needs to be done on Sprint's end. Sorry for the confusion, going through a week of back pain from an injury. Hopefully the next iPhone will also support it and hopefully it really helps with B25/26 congestion. 

The HPUE-capable LG G6 has already been announced by Sprint.

 

The network is ready:

 

 

 

The Samsung Galaxy S8 is likely to follow soon, based on this, and should also be HPUE-capable per this article.

 

Wait so no need for new radios to go up? I thought tower visits were going to be necessary for this switch. I understand the user devices are on the way, but I thought each tower would need a visit.

I'll be honest, I do not know if it will be "Sprint" rolling this out once the auction ends (most likely a combined company will), and who knows what a merged company will want to do. Sprint has unfortunately made me very skeptical about their network over the years. Literally, Sprint is the only cell phone company I have ever had since I got my first cell phone. I was upset about WiMAX, but understood why they went to LTE. Then tri-band LTE with B41, the speeds are great when connected to B41, but when you are traveling you often do not hang onto B41 for long. Son is really not seemingly optimistic about Sprint unless it is merged: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/business/dealbook/masayoshi-son-sprint-and-a-bet-on-the-trump-economy.html?_r=1. The HPUE demonstration at MWC may have been a showcase to potential suitors the power the spectrum. I would not be surprised if Comcast or another cable provider gains interest.

Has anyone else noticed Marcelo's "RF Engineers Doing Speed Tests" campaign on his Twitter feed? I think it's a pretty good sign how things are trending at Sprint...

 

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/837705634158161925

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/837484682317086720

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/835973226794725376

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/835530048769822721

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/834227844347723776

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/833683887167565825

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/832729059394199553

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/830795850674749440

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/830168273736052736

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/830115133414318081

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/829788009507717122

https://twitter.com/marceloclaure/status/829427527231930368

It is all well and good, but I would much rather have a consistent 10-25Mbps speed block to block, area to area, rather than insane speed tests on one block and 0.53Mbps on the next block. I do like seeing progress being made though.

Okay so I called back today to buyout my four leases (I was hung up on last night twice), and today I was told they cannot do this over the phone. I have to visit a Sprint store. Is this true? I thought people were able to pay it off over the phone!

But that's his point. They are densifying B41 in urban/suburban areas and adding HPUE. HPUE is beneficial even in existing signal areas. It strengthens your uplink connection. It's not just valuable in fringe areas to extend service. HPUE is a good thing even if densifying. It doesn't have to be either/or.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

 

Yes, I understand that, but to the average consumer they will not see this benefit for awhile unfortunately. I am not correct in understanding that HPUE headsets are just expected to hit the market this year? 

I drove through Bronx today on the Cross Bronx Expressway from the Throgs Neck to GW Bridge. First off the part leading up to the bridge made me feel like I was in a 3rd world country.  But the data speeds  also made me feel that way. I connected to several B41 sites and sectors with 2xCA. Signals were strong and it was about 3-4Pm yet I couldn't get above .5Mbps. Is this normal for the Bronx? Are the sites that congested or is there a major backhaul problem?

 

Unfortunately, I have had this issue in the Woodlawn section of the Bronx and around the Fordham University area consistently. I have called about it as well. It is just strange. some days it works moderately well, other times it is just doesn't work. That being said, there are areas where it is great. The problem is the reliability in the Bronx is not great.

Virtually all densification is currently B41.  B25 is generally referred to as refarming. The new B41 options at existing sites covered above come in at a far lower cost, thus should be able to be deployed where needed by Sprint (they will try refarming first, which does double speeds at the edge).

 

I just do not know if this will cut it versus the competition. It will involve another upgrade cycle for real-world users to experience the HPUE benefits, when they can already experience the benefits of better data networks with other carriers. Sprint's main issues continue to be in areas where suburban sprawl has exceeded the network and is not dense enough for B41.